User talk:Seicer/Archive 3

My edit
Why did you undo my edit? Angry Aspie 01:28, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Bubba the Love Sponge
There is no reason for you to not allow a Fan Club as an external link. It is valid due to Wikipedias rules and regulations. Howard Stern has several external Fan Site links and there is no problem with those staying in Wikipedia. It is unfair to allow some things in one article and not in others. Wikipedia is an open forum for valid information and that external link is valid, otherwise remove all of the Howard Stern fan sites that are listed. Overton 11:35, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
 * ^ User was part of a host of spammers at Bubba the Love Sponge.  Seicer  (talk) (contribs) 06:50, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Brian Crecente
On the discussion page for AfD for this article you state: ''# Delete: Non-notable person. PRs and some articles do not assert notability Seicer (talk) (contribs) 02:39, 29 May 2007 (UTC)''

Google "Brian Crecente" and you'll see that there are approx 127,000 hits. Additionally he is the editor of a Top-40 blog (per Technorati). If you could check a couple of the first links in Google I think you'll see that there is notability per the General notability guidelines.

If you agree I would ask that you consider changing your recommendation. Drew30319 22:54, 2 June 2007 (UTC)


 * ^ Sorry, still does not seem to be totally notable, per BIO.  Seicer  (talk) (contribs) 19:29, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

WP:BITE
Please don't WP:BITE the newbies. WP:NOT is not a speedy deletion reason and a few personal photos in userspace are allowed, although that appears to have been exceeded in this case. Let me talk to them. -N 18:19, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Please read WP:CSD. Again, NOT MYSPACE is NOT a reason for speedy deletion. If you want the images deleted you will have to list them at WP:IFD. -N 19:09, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
 * ^ Request amended. All images were IFDed. Why N did not do this himself is beyond me. I found it funny that he accused me of "attacking" a "new" editor, when all I did was apply standard CSD templates. And the editor was not "new".  Seicer  (talk) (contribs) 19:28, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Labrador retriever
I removed these weblogs about the dogs, as they are not considered to be reliable sources per wikipedia WP:verify. Please don't reinsert them, as I put a note about them in my edit history, and a comment on the talk page. I deleted the accompanying text, as it can't stand without references. KP Botany 02:19, 4 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Ah, okay. It does need quite a bit of general clean-up, so continue having at it.  KP Botany 02:24, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

WP:RFP
Good idea, just asked for semi-protection on the talk page. That should get his attention. Thanks for the idea. KP Botany 02:47, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

FA
There's nothing that says everything in an FA must have an inline citation. Claims should only be removed if you think they're dubious. --W.marsh 03:22, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
 * But do you actually think the claim is false? WIAFA just speaks of articles being factually accurate. The article cites many general sources, including "The Encyclopedia of Louisville", by removing the claim you're suggesting the claim is not backed up by any of those sources. --W.marsh 03:29, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Then it's fine to remove the claim if you aren't able to find anything. I wasn't sure you even found the claim dubious, I'm the first to agree that anything dubious needs an inline source, that's what WIAFA says. At any rate, I'm looking at the Encyclopedia of Louisville now and not seeing specific confirmation of the claim in question. --W.marsh 03:42, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
 * ^ No source could be found for the statement to Louisville, Kentucky.  Seicer  (talk) (contribs) 14:27, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Non-free use disputed for Image:Ninjalicious Book Cover.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Ninjalicious Book Cover.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read carefully the instructions at Non-free content and then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our Criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 16:05, 4 June 2007 (UTC)


 * ^ Applied FU.  Seicer  (talk) (contribs) 14:26, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Non-free use disputed for Image:Iraq in Fragments.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Iraq in Fragments.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read carefully the instructions at Non-free content and then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our Criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 07:44, 5 June 2007 (UTC)


 * ^ applied FU rationale.   Seicer  (talk) (contribs) 03:46, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Congratulations
I hope it was worth it. --kingboyk 12:58, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Despite the sarcasm, Kingboyk has a very valid point to make. Any user who makes encyclopedic contributions is entitled to as much of an extravagant user page as they want - a few pictures is no excuse to houd down such an editor - if it was, I'd have an excuse to go around deleting autograph books, but I can't :(.  WP:BITE takes far greater precendence over WP:NOT, and I would go as far to say WP:NOT.  Thanks. Martinp23 14:19, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Proof? Martinp23 14:21, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
 * ^ Obviously, it is biting the users by applying standard templates when an image violates WP:NOT or any other violation.  Seicer  (talk) (contribs) 14:26, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Many templates do bite - it is your job when doing "the grunt work" to apply tags judiciously, and your references to policies unknown to may experienced Wikipedians are pointless. Avoid WP:ALPHABETSOUP, if you see what I mean, and try to put policy links into nice phrases: Wikipedia is not myspace. The whole point of my message to you, and kingboyk's, was that, as the user had contributed to the encyclopedia, WP:MYSPACE had no valid application. If a group of users come here and just make user/user talk space edits, then we apply WP:MYSPACE. Otherwise, it has no valid basis, and if it did, I would use it on many an editor.
 * NB - the message I see on the talk page now didn't come from a template, I'm pretty sure, did it? Martinp23 14:28, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Nonsense. Proof: .  Seicer  (talk) (contribs) 14:31, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
 * This is not a template message, and amounts to biting the newcomer (who is clearly newer than most users, in the relative sense). Also, one post form yourself to an administrative noticeboard does not equate proof of sockpuppetry, and even if it is going on, can you tell me which policy is being violated (I think you'll find that none are).  Looking at that ANI thread, you have been reprimanded there for biting the newbies, and have failed to take heed of this, and also the fact that your frequent references to WP:NOT are heavily flawed, on the basis that I have outlined above.  Ideally, I'd like to see you post a message for the user in question apologising for being over-zealous, and perhaps send her an email containing a similar message.  If you persist, however, I may have to disengage myself and ask another admin to take a look. Martinp23 14:38, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Nonsense. Proof: . Don't bite those who do the grunt work and assume good faith.  Seicer  (talk) (contribs) 14:43, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, but you'll note that the diff I referred to was different. My point about invalid uses of WP:NOT still stands, and I would ask that you refrain from describing my messages to you as "garbage". Martinp23 14:46, 5 June 2007 (UTC)


 * (restart block) And I'm fairly certain that the images will result in deletion at IFD as the images are un-encyclopedic (per standard), and some were even orphaned; now all are, so it's really a moot point.  Seicer  (talk) (contribs) 14:51, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Annnnd this is getting old. The images were clearly un-encyclopedic and were submitted for speedy delete. When someone informed me that that was not possible, I submitted them for IFD. Using standard templates. Any other messages regarding this will be deleted, because frankly, it's getting old and very tiring. Have a good day.  Seicer  (talk) (contribs) 14:57, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Quite frankly, you need to rethink your priorities. This is not a power game. If someone is making good-faith mainspace contributions, they should be given considerable leeway. Good content contributions are way more important than userpages. If they're userspace is absolutely, irredeemably Myspacey, they should be talked to, gently and calmly. Not rudely templated in this ridiculous manner. This is not like fair use, where copyright law is at stake. This is a matter of preference, and we should talk to people, not template them. Moreschi Talk 15:11, 5 June 2007 (UTC) CCed to other users involved in the dispute: Thinking back on the issue, I was probably more harsh than lenient. I should have given the user more feedback on what is appropriate for the images, and in not doing so, I may have caused the loss of a constructive editor for Wikipedia. I am taking full responsibility for that. I am also taking responsibility for my harshness in the replies, but please assume good faith in my edits; they were not meant to detract from Wikipedia or from another editor. I'll e-mail the user and leave an apology note on her talk page. Thanks,  Seicer  (talk) (contribs) 15:15, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Found her MySpace page and dropped her a note there. In the future, is it really necessary to do a three-admin pileup on one editor?  Seicer  (talk) (contribs) 15:38, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for taking a step back and looking at the situation - it happens to the best of us that we need to take a short break and step down. As for the three admins thing - often admins request the input of others for a "sanity check" (ie, for example, to check that I've not gone mad in my messages above) and to quickly resolve the difficulties (see Moreschi's message).  Thanks again, Martinp23 15:48, 5 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Just my 2 cents. I think everyone involved here is operating in good faith. I don't think anyone overstepped thier bounds, and am sad that people are letting this cause them Wikistress. I see no need for anyone to feel guilty, or like they have been picked on, though I think most expericeinced wikipedians understand how people can feel this way occasionally. Seicer, I hope you aren't going on wikibreak just for this, I think you have made it clear that you don't want the other user to take it personally, so I see no need to "punish yourself" (if that is what you are doing). If you hadn't listed those images for deletion I would have. Thanks. -- Diletante 19:03, 5 June 2007 (UTC)


 * ^ Thanks for the support. Unfortunately, I was piled on by three admins, and while that may be acceptable to them, it unfairly penalizes me for just following the standard. I don't think some assumed good faith by placing rather rude comments about my edits, but it is three admins versus one. As you might have found out, I corrected the admin's misactions by citing my previous edits, but I decided in the end that it wasn't worth it. I'm taking a small wikibreak to focus on my other web-sites mainly.  Seicer  (talk) (contribs) 19:17, 5 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Ok, If you are taking a break to work on other stuff, enjoy. I just want to point out that the opinions of admins don't carry any special weight compared to other users. Admins are just users whom enough people trust to give them the admin tools. See you later. -- Diletante 19:30, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

My comment on the Carly images
Hi, I've posted a comment on my talk page  on the issue of image deletions from the user page of Oh yEs itS caRly. I would appreciate it if you take a look and give your input. Happy editing. -- Diletante 02:02, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

My reply

 * I felt that I was operating in good faith in trying to remove the images. I made a mistake by applying the images for speedy delete when I misinterpreted WP:NOT, for which I have apologised for already. I then applied for IFDs on the images.
 * I was later gangpiled by three admins (one seeking another opinion, another seeking another opinion, etc.) at here. That felt itimidating and overwhelming, and is part of the reason why I am talking a wikibreak. I have no hard feelings towards any admin that or user that has discussed it on my talk page. They are only doing their duty as an admin and had a right to notify me, but in the future, please assume I had the best intentions.
 * I was accused of biting the new user despite the fact was not exactly a new user.
 * I then had to defend myself many times from who most likely misinterpreted my intentions on the removal of the images. I had to provide proof that was clearly stated on the page histories, and felt as if I was being targeted for my good-faith edits.
 * I used standard templates per instruction on the speedy image delete page, and later refreshed them when I applied for IFDs. Another editor combined them. That didn't stop me from being accused of not using the proper templates: "the message I see on the talk page now didn't come from a template".
 * then stated that I needed to be "gentle" and "calm" -- and while I agree that the templates probably overwhelmed Carley, they are per standard. I did nothing wrong in that regard.
 * did not assume assume good faith and even resorted to a personal attack here.
 * Overall, you don't see me going all haywire on their talk pages. I did what any editor would: Apply for the proper template and notify the user on the talk page on the image that is up for deletion. Let me reiterate: There is nothing wrong with doing that. It's not "biting" the user, it's not assuming bad faith, and it's not a personal attack. While I may have caused her to leave, I take full responsibility for that and feel very much guilty. But please do not pin the whole situation on me, when I was just following policy. If I had not notified her on the images being deleted, then I would have been critised for not doing so, right? Double standard...  Seicer  (talk) (contribs) 03:44, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Habbo Hotel
Hi Seicer, I am curious to know what exactly is stopping the raids from being included in the article. SakotGrimshine is right that most of the content in the article can be verified by just looking around. I am not interested in including the raids; I as much as you don't want them included, but I am very curious to know what is wrong with them. If you could reply soon, thanks – Se bi  ~ 05:49, 6 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Ahh, I see now. Thanks for that, – Se bi  ~ 06:23, 6 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Will do! ;) – Se bi  ~ 06:27, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

It turns out
...I do need something ;) User:Kai wants to merge Habbo Hotel with Habbo - Habbo just has a link back to Habbo Hotel, which is quite stupid really. If you could help out a bit, I've got a feeling if I do any more I'll get blamed for WP:OWN or WP:3RR... – Se bi  ~ 07:20, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

USRD Newsletter - Issue 9

 * Want to help on next month's newsletter? Don't want to receive these in future? Don't want it subst'd next time? – It's all here. —Vsh Bot (t • c) 16:40, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Southeastern U.S.
To start off.. The page has had countless sourced (by encyclopedias ) contributions deleted and replaced with unsourced claims. Now the user who did this is Gator and he rejects any and all encyclopedic sources and instead opts to use his own opinion on what state's make up the region. As we know the region is called the SouthEAST rather than breaking off the Western most states of the Southern region (Texas and Oklahoma), he makes up some crap about the Missouri compromise and how states north of it aren't apart of the region, despite 60%-75% percent of the sources on in the article and on the talk page include the state's of Virginia and Kentucky (and occasionally West Virginia). 74.128.200.135 05:36, 13 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Despite the fact that all of your edits have been reverted by many other legitimate and constructive editors?  Seicer  (talk) (contribs) 18:36, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Bubba The Love Sponge
Hey Seicer, BobDavis4 who continues editing in that unofficial fansite to the Bubba page recently deleted the whole Discussion Archive, figured I'd give you a heads up 71.162.131.234 04:43, 14 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Hello, ah....you just yelled at me for editing the Bubba the Love Sponge page. I can assure you I have never even visited that page. I don't know if somebody is using my account or anything...but I don't even know who Bubba is. I normally just look at pages related to my favorite bands. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.177.164.111 (talk • contribs)


 * Right... same IPvandal causing persistent troubles. I didn't think a warning was called "yelling."  Seicer  (talk) (contribs) 18:35, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Pullman Square
The article Pullman Square you nominated as a good article has passed, see Talk:Pullman Square for eventual comments about the article. Well done! GrooveDog 21:23, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

UK history
I agree completely that the history needs to be expanded and sourced. I appreciate the work that you are putting in on this. I am a little concerned that there is too much detail about the domestic partner benefits, it may be a big issue right now, but in 1-5 years, it will be in everyone's rear view mirror, and it will look out of place. See Recentism, and Go Big Blue --rogerd 18:17, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Seicer- I read your explanation. It is nonsense, in my opinion. The long and detailed account of the domestic partner benefits in U K History section 1.1 will not be justified by expanding all the history. To give equal length to all significant UK history would make this article as long as a book. June 11, 2007 at 6:58 PM. I use IP address in accordance with Wiki policy, so please get over it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.80.21.136 (talk • contribs)


 * Nonsense? Now, if you would read my explanations, I stated that I would be expanding upon the article and wholly citing it, so your patent persistence would be considered minor. Also, there is no way unless hell would freeze over that my good faith edits would be considered vandalism or would require administrator intervention.  Seicer  (talk) (contribs) 00:28, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Seicer- Thanks for repairing my messed up reference on Kentucky Attorney General June 1, 2007 opinion.65.80.21.136 19:47, 15 June 2007 (UTC)65.80.21.136 - June 15, 2007

I made a proper edit that you vandalized.I had an explanation in the edit info of why your verbose edits are no pertinent to the newly titled section of history. Domestic Partner Benefits as detailed in the History no longer exist at UK. A new plan that is compliant with law was announced today to UK employees. As a recent UK graduate, you may not have received Frank's e-mail. I have reviewed your record of stubborn  edit disputes on Wiki and I suggest that you seek legal advice before you continue such actions.74.234.156.16 22:48, 18 June 2007 (UTC)


 * No, you erased much background information from the domestic partner benefits program in an attempt to push your viewpoints, and then inputted some badly written, uncited text. Legal threats are also very much frowned upon here.  Seicer  (talk) (contribs) 23:59, 18 June 2007 (UTC)


 * And I am not a recent UK graduate, FTR. I'm still attending, and actually work for the university. Thanks for peeking into my background...

Sorry I thought you graduated. My mistake. I did not peek in your background, it is well documented on the web and available to anyone with the skills to find it. I have made no legal threat against you of Wiki and your assertion that I have is improper and uncivil. I have no plans to ever take legal action against any insignificant matter.

I have no viewpoint on the domestic partner benefits or the the new plan announced by Frank today. As an employee of UK, did you get a copy of his e-mail? If not, it will probably be in the Herald Leader tomorrow and you can reference it. I have no dog in this fight. I want you to be responsible and stop putting your POV on Domestic Partner Benefits in distorted detail on the University of Kentucky Wiki page. May God bless you.You will never hear from me again-have a field day pushing your npov..74.234.156.16 00:31, 19 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry, but I perceived this as a legal threat: "...and I suggest that you seek legal advice before you continue such actions." Also, please keep uncivil comments, such as my "stubborn edit disputes," out of the reply. As an employee, I did receive the e-mail but I will cite the H-L article whenever I have more time to edit Wikipedia ... probably tomorrow, if someone else has not cited it by then. I reverted your edits initially because you erased information pertaining to the domestic partner benefits, the original incarnation; your addition of the update could have gone very well at the end without major snipping of the section -- which then offers a distorted picture of the whole situation. Your text removal also damaged several reference points, as they are referred to later in the paragraphs, thereby breaking the citations. And god doesn't bless me, I'm an atheist. But have a good day as well, please continue editing, but be mindful of other editors and their reasons, and do not be as sharp to be so callous or to call others out on vandalism.  Seicer  (talk) (contribs) 02:23, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Cityscape of Ashland, Kentucky
The article Cityscape of Ashland, Kentucky you nominated as a good article has passed, see Talk:Cityscape of Ashland, Kentucky for eventual comments about the article. Well done! GrooveDog 18:37, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Reverting Troll edits
One of the editors who I believe is just acting as a troll blanked the fan site discussion from the archive diff. It isn't surprising given his history with the talk page and the fact that he was the one who archived the page, hence why I had it watch listed. I had thought about slow reverting the change since I have tried to stay out of this since I felt I was just feeding the troll, but I wasn't sure if anyone caught that last edit. If you had some plan with how you were dealing with the troll/vandal let me know, or if you would like some assistance. I can't see the WP:ANI you opened, but I was wondering if an request for comment/user or sockpuppet check would be an appropriate solution at this point. I'm also going to mention this to another user who is familiar with the conflicts the various Stern pages have concerning fan sites. Optigan13 05:05, 27 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I placed it on my watchlist, and reverted the changes. The user has been warned. If this persists, I'll file to have the site blacklisted from Wikipedia (or is it whitelisted?)  Seicer  (talk) (contribs) 05:11, 27 June 2007 (UTC)


 * It's blacklist I believe you are referring to. The other thing I'm not sure about if his bouncing around IPs constitutes sockpuppetry, since all the whois queries point to the same user either at the same home location or at what appears to be his work. Optigan13 05:22, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

USRD Newsletter - Issue 10

 * Want to help on next month's newsletter? Don't want to receive these in future? Don't want it subst'd next time? – It's all here. —Vsh Bot (t • c) 04:03, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Here is the Source
As I recall you asked for a source to confirm Kentucky's numbers from the Southern Focus Study (which for some reason you didn't believe) which in tern confirms Kentucky's Southernness.

John Shelton Reed

Percent who say their community is in the South (percentage base in parentheses)

Alabama 98 (717) South Carolina 98 (553) Louisiana 97 (606) Mississippi 97 (431) Georgia 97 (1017) Tennessee 97 (838) North Carolina 93 (1292) Arkansas 92 (400) Florida 90 (1792) Texas 84 (2050) Virginia 82 (1014) Kentucky 79 (582) Oklahoma 69 (411)

West Virginia 45 (82) Maryland 40 (173) Missouri 23 (177) Delaware 14 (21) D.C. 7 (15)

Percent who say they are Southerners (percentage base in parentheses)

Mississippi 90 (432) Louisiana 89 (606) Alabama 88 (716) Tennessee 84 (838) South Carolina 82 (553) Arkansas 81 (399) Georgia 81 (1017) North Carolina 80 (1290) Texas 68 (2053) Kentucky 68 (584) Virginia 60 (1012) Oklahoma 53 (410) Florida 51 (1791)

West Virginia 25 (84) Maryland 19 (192) Missouri 15 (197) New Mexico 13 (68) Delaware 12 (25) D.C. 12 (16) Utah 11 (70) Indiana 10 (208) Illinois 9 (362) Ohio 8 (396) Arizona 7 (117) Michigan 6 (336)

All others less than 6 percent.

Well here it is

Louisvillian 17:04, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Giving up
I'm getting really tired of this. I just give up on the GTZ article. Maybe we can let it slide this time and overturn it later. ··· 日本穣 ? · Talk to Nihonjoe 22:18, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

I just wanted to point out that the above comment was not left by Nihonjoe, as indicated, but rather a sock impersonating him.-Chunky Rice 06:02, 29 July 2007 (UTC)